论文部分内容阅读
Abstract：In current patterns of media， old media and new media both prevail in modern society. Since media is a too broad term， this article will focus on the film industry. It will state whether the imperialism of Hollywood， a typical media giant， exists in the film industry and its influence on cultural globalization.
Key words：film industry；imperialism；globalization
Before the discussion of imperialism in the current film industry， the meaning of media imperialism should be first defined. Chin-Chuan Lee（1980） describes media imperialism of television culture in his book： “Specifically， media imperialism refers to television program exportation to foreign countries； foreign ownership and control of media outlets； transfer of the ‘metropolitan’ broadcasting norms and institutionalization of media commercialism at the expense of ‘public interest’； and invasion of capitalistic world views and infringe upon the indigenous way of life in the recipient nation.” （Lee， 1980： 68） To sum up， there are four features in the meaning of media imperialism.
In my view， media industries have moved from imperialism to globalization. Nowadays， the logic of accumulation of media industry has changed. Local media industries begin to show their powers. For example， Asian media industries become more globalized， by having adapted many marketing strategies learned from foreign competitors. Consequently， the film companies have to change their strategies. ‘As applied to contemporary media， this insight suggests that even though a film or TV company may be founded with the aim of serving a particular national culture or a local market， over time it must redeploy its creative resources and reshape its terrain of operations if it is to survive competition and enhance profitability’ （Holt and Perren， 2009：112）. At first， Hollywood was dependent on small， collaborative labors for filmmaking. But due to the development of theater chain， complicated distribution and severe competition， it began to rely on creative labors. ‘As American cinema entered this factory phase during the 1910s， the intensification of production accelerated output and yielded cost efficiencies， providing theater operators around the country with a dependable flow of quantity products’ （Bordwell et al.， 1985）.
Trajectories of creative migration are the second principal of the media industry. Screen producers should face a big challenge that is attracting and managing talents. Before modern times，the authorities kept the artists in a certain place for their work. But now， industrialists build performance places to attract the talents to commercial cities. Film industries would recruit some talents from popular theater or cultivate new talents. Meanwhile， the artists would no longer be the long-term ones. Hollywood， however， is still the dream of many cultural labors.Workers stay around Hollywood since it provides workers with lots of employment chances. The third principal is the forces of sociocultural variation. As Hollywood became popular， many countries began to issue cultural policies to avoid the growing influence of Hollywood. ‘Many countries imposed import quotas and content regulations on Hollywood films and some set up national film boards to subsidize cinema productions with national themes and talents’ （Jarvie， I. C.， 1992）. That is to say， imperialism actually has limited impact on the film industry. ‘As we can see， the boundaries and contours of markets are subject to political interventions that enable， shape， and attenuate the dynamics of media industries. Concept such as free flow and market forces are in fact meaningless without self-conscious state interventions to fashion a terrain for commercial operations’ （Holt and Perren， 2009：116）.
When talking about media globalization， many critics condemn it as media imperialism since many corporations are multinational and have set up many branches all over the world. But it is because the geographical location is beneficial for foreign investment rather than selling products and services globally. Peter Dicken （2003：30） defined the global operation as ‘a firm that has the power to coordinate and control operations in a large number of countries （even if it does not own them）， but whose geographically-dispersed operations are functionally integrated， and not merely a diverse portfolio of activities’. Take three media conglomerates of Hollywood as example to prove the statement.
TNI means transnationality index，which ‘measures the percentage of a company’s assets， sales and employees that are outside of the country’s home base， and divides this figure by three’ （Flew， 2007：85）. From the table below， it shows that the foreign assets only account for a small proportion of the total assets. Meanwhile，revenues earned are mostly from North America， namely the home base. Although all of the three companies have expanded globally since the 1990s，only News Corporation earned nearly a half of its total revenues from abroad.
In conclusion， imperialism is not as useful as before in the analysis of current film industry and its cultural globalization. In today’s economy， political and cultural world， globalization is a more suitable notion to describe. Imperialism， in my view， is used to describe a more violent force when a control invades a different culture and society while globalization is a more civilized way for modern society to achieve profits or benefits.
References：
[1]Bordwell，David，Staiger， Janet.，and Thompson， Kristin. Eds.The Classic Hollywood[1]Cinema： Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960[M].London： Routledge，1985.
[2]Dicken，Peter.‘Placing’Firms： Grounding the Debate on the ‘Global’.in Peck，Jamie and Yeung，Henry Wai-Chung.Eds， Remaking the Global Economy[M]. London：Sage，2003：27-44.
[3]Flew，Terry.（2007）Understanding Global Media.Hampshire and New York ： Palgrave Macmillan，2007.
（作者單位：宁波大红鹰学院）
Key words：film industry；imperialism；globalization
Before the discussion of imperialism in the current film industry， the meaning of media imperialism should be first defined. Chin-Chuan Lee（1980） describes media imperialism of television culture in his book： “Specifically， media imperialism refers to television program exportation to foreign countries； foreign ownership and control of media outlets； transfer of the ‘metropolitan’ broadcasting norms and institutionalization of media commercialism at the expense of ‘public interest’； and invasion of capitalistic world views and infringe upon the indigenous way of life in the recipient nation.” （Lee， 1980： 68） To sum up， there are four features in the meaning of media imperialism.
In my view， media industries have moved from imperialism to globalization. Nowadays， the logic of accumulation of media industry has changed. Local media industries begin to show their powers. For example， Asian media industries become more globalized， by having adapted many marketing strategies learned from foreign competitors. Consequently， the film companies have to change their strategies. ‘As applied to contemporary media， this insight suggests that even though a film or TV company may be founded with the aim of serving a particular national culture or a local market， over time it must redeploy its creative resources and reshape its terrain of operations if it is to survive competition and enhance profitability’ （Holt and Perren， 2009：112）. At first， Hollywood was dependent on small， collaborative labors for filmmaking. But due to the development of theater chain， complicated distribution and severe competition， it began to rely on creative labors. ‘As American cinema entered this factory phase during the 1910s， the intensification of production accelerated output and yielded cost efficiencies， providing theater operators around the country with a dependable flow of quantity products’ （Bordwell et al.， 1985）.
Trajectories of creative migration are the second principal of the media industry. Screen producers should face a big challenge that is attracting and managing talents. Before modern times，the authorities kept the artists in a certain place for their work. But now， industrialists build performance places to attract the talents to commercial cities. Film industries would recruit some talents from popular theater or cultivate new talents. Meanwhile， the artists would no longer be the long-term ones. Hollywood， however， is still the dream of many cultural labors.Workers stay around Hollywood since it provides workers with lots of employment chances. The third principal is the forces of sociocultural variation. As Hollywood became popular， many countries began to issue cultural policies to avoid the growing influence of Hollywood. ‘Many countries imposed import quotas and content regulations on Hollywood films and some set up national film boards to subsidize cinema productions with national themes and talents’ （Jarvie， I. C.， 1992）. That is to say， imperialism actually has limited impact on the film industry. ‘As we can see， the boundaries and contours of markets are subject to political interventions that enable， shape， and attenuate the dynamics of media industries. Concept such as free flow and market forces are in fact meaningless without self-conscious state interventions to fashion a terrain for commercial operations’ （Holt and Perren， 2009：116）.
When talking about media globalization， many critics condemn it as media imperialism since many corporations are multinational and have set up many branches all over the world. But it is because the geographical location is beneficial for foreign investment rather than selling products and services globally. Peter Dicken （2003：30） defined the global operation as ‘a firm that has the power to coordinate and control operations in a large number of countries （even if it does not own them）， but whose geographically-dispersed operations are functionally integrated， and not merely a diverse portfolio of activities’. Take three media conglomerates of Hollywood as example to prove the statement.
TNI means transnationality index，which ‘measures the percentage of a company’s assets， sales and employees that are outside of the country’s home base， and divides this figure by three’ （Flew， 2007：85）. From the table below， it shows that the foreign assets only account for a small proportion of the total assets. Meanwhile，revenues earned are mostly from North America， namely the home base. Although all of the three companies have expanded globally since the 1990s，only News Corporation earned nearly a half of its total revenues from abroad.
In conclusion， imperialism is not as useful as before in the analysis of current film industry and its cultural globalization. In today’s economy， political and cultural world， globalization is a more suitable notion to describe. Imperialism， in my view， is used to describe a more violent force when a control invades a different culture and society while globalization is a more civilized way for modern society to achieve profits or benefits.
References：
[1]Bordwell，David，Staiger， Janet.，and Thompson， Kristin. Eds.The Classic Hollywood[1]Cinema： Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960[M].London： Routledge，1985.
[2]Dicken，Peter.‘Placing’Firms： Grounding the Debate on the ‘Global’.in Peck，Jamie and Yeung，Henry Wai-Chung.Eds， Remaking the Global Economy[M]. London：Sage，2003：27-44.
[3]Flew，Terry.（2007）Understanding Global Media.Hampshire and New York ： Palgrave Macmillan，2007.
（作者單位：宁波大红鹰学院）